Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 83

Thread: Armed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

  1. #21
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, actually it was viewed through no prism in particular, which is the way it should be. The war in Iraq has had the effect of making many conservatives oppose any military action in which they imagine that the US might get some frowns from the rest of the world (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would). And it's had the effect of making many liberals **** themselves at the very mention of military intervention in which they imagine that the US might sustain a heavy number of casualties or a prolonged campaign (intervening in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't...but many just assume that it would).

    I think that we should evaluate when we should intervene on a case-by-case basis. Cote D'Ivoire seems like an excellent candidate for American military intervention, if Gbagbo won't stand down. It would have the effect of giving the Ivorian people their legitimate government, helping to end a poverty trap in Africa, and discouraging other would-be despots from stealing elections or staging coups of their own. A robust American military presence would help encourage the development not just of Cote D'Ivoire, but of other countries under threat of coup where the US could make a credible promise to intervene if necessary.

    Not picking on your because you were only 10 in 2001, but I was in the Army in the 90's and yes, our military was viewed through the prism of Somalia. Just like up until the point we were viewed through the prism of Vietnam. UBL even referred to Somalia as proof that the U.S. couldn't stand the sting of battle.

    I agree with economist Paul Collier. Countries stuck in poverty traps will remain poor until they can break free of those traps. It could take decades for them to do it on their own, but American help could speed up the process.
    Most African countries have had a couple of milennia and they can't do it. I see no reason to spend money and risk lives on a ****hole that will still be a ****hole after we leave. Without a deliberate annihilation of all the dumbasses inside--and outside--of the government and a lengthy occupation, it's a waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #22
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not picking on your because you were only 10 in 2001, but I was in the Army in the 90's and yes, our military was viewed through the prism of Somalia. Just like up until the point we were viewed through the prism of Vietnam. UBL even referred to Somalia as proof that the U.S. couldn't stand the sting of battle.
    Or we could try to evaluate each potential intervention on its own merits instead of shrieking "ZOMG another Somalia" or "ZOMG another Iraq." But I guess ill-informed analogies are easier than actually thinking about challenging geopolitical issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    Most African countries have had a couple of milennia and they can't do it. I see no reason to spend money and risk lives on a ****hole that will still be a ****hole after we leave. Without a deliberate annihilation of all the dumbasses inside--and outside--of the government and a lengthy occupation, it's a waste of time.
    And I suppose that shrieking "ZOMG dumbass Africans" (translation: "stupid ****ing niggers") is easier than trying to understand economics, trying to figure out why they haven't been able to develop as much as the rest of the world, and how we might be able to help.

    An American offer to intervene in places where democracy is imperiled would go a long way toward preventing coups and election-stealing in the first place, which would in turn go a long way toward reducing the need for many democratic African nations to spend so much on their military and enable them to spend more on development. That doesn't mean that we need to go overthrowing every dictator in the world, but it's time to intervene when there is a clearcut case of someone stealing an election or staging a coup in a smallish country, there is a legitimate government ready to take power, and it won't cost us very much. This kind of thing should be one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-29-10 at 02:00 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #23
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yeah, ten years ago. I'm certainly not suggesting that this will be the only time we'll need to intervene. I'm OK with the US playing an active role in Africa to protect democrats.
    Ok, stop!! What the hell's gotten into the Liberals lately? Wait! Are ya'll hoping something like this will possibly make Obama look like a hero??



    No, you're just viewing this through the prism of the war in Iraq. The people of Cote D'Ivoire elected a new president, we wouldn't be installing one.
    They elected the last guy, too. Iran wanted to elect a new prez a new government in fact; were you as gung-ho to invade Iran?



    To what "people" are you referring? Certainly not the people of Cote D'Ivoire, where the United States has a 94% favorability rating...the highest in the entire world, in fact.
    Sub-Saharan Africa Leads World in U.S. Approval
    I'm talking about the people that Ivornonians that will go nuts, if this new guy goes rogue.



    I don't think we need to intentionally escalate conflicts in a situation like this, but US soldiers should be willing to engage if necessary. 1,000 US soldiers who were willing to fire could impose order a lot faster than 10,000 UN peacekeepers that were not.
    If they're not forced to impose order with three rounds per man, or no ammo at all. Or, rules of engagement that prevent our troops from actually engaging the enemy. Not to mention, a CIC that isn't afraid of a little collateral damage for the safety of the soldiers. All things considered, I think we're **** outta luck on all three accounts.

    Don't forget, the reason Somalia turned out so bad, is because Clinton refused to allow armor support to take part in the mission, for fear of too much collateral damage.

    I say no, unless we have a CIC that is willing to allow any and all firepower and support to our soldiers on the ground and that, we surely don't have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #24
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No worries. Not picking on you because you were already going senile in 2001. You just worry about your knitting, grandpa.
    Close, but no cigar...



    Or we could try to evaluate each potential intervention on its own merits instead of shrieking "ZOMG another Somalia" or "ZOMG another Iraq." But I guess ill-informed analogies are easier than actually thinking about challenging geopolitical issues.
    Or, we can just stay the hell out of it, until we're ready to go in and fight it the right way. The use of military force hasn't changed in a few thousands years. It's, "diplomacy by other means", not, "diplomacy for diplomacy's sake".



    And I suppose that shrieking "ZOMG dumbass Africans" (translation: "stupid ****ing niggers") is easier than trying to understand economics, trying to figure out why they haven't been able to develop as much as the rest of the world, and how we might be able to help.
    Why am I not surprised that you took that route?

    An American offer to intervene in places where democracy is imperiled would go a long way toward preventing coups and election-stealing in the first place, which would in turn go a long way toward reducing the need for many democratic African nations to spend so much on their military and enable them to spend more on development. That doesn't mean that we need to go overthrowing every dictator in the world, but when there is a clearcut case of someone stealing an election or staging a coup in a smallish country and it won't cost us very much, it's time to intervene. This kind of thing should be one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy.
    I guess that means that you're all about deploying troops to Israel, to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #25
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Ok, stop!! What the hell's gotten into the Liberals lately? Wait! Are ya'll hoping something like this will possibly make Obama look like a hero??
    That's a pretty low brow statement even from you bro. Come on now, we're talking about alot of peoples lives and the fate of a nation, not a stupid congress brawl.

    Now, I don't support American intervention, it's long time that Africa sorted out it's own problems.

    Khandahar, this is a time when I have to disagree with you. Foreign intervention in Africa has a history of failure, I do not encourage it, we have to help ourselves, or we'll never get out of this crap.

    The issue we should be discussing is, should the Western African Union Forces go into Ivory Coast?

    American intervention is a pipe dream at the very least they may provide money but nothing more.

  6. #26
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Ok, stop!! What the hell's gotten into the Liberals lately? Wait! Are ya'll hoping something like this will possibly make Obama look like a hero??
    I'm interested in foreign policy and international development, not petty partisanship.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    They elected the last guy, too.
    Yeah, ten years ago. If this new guy tries to become a dictator in ten years, we can intervene again in ten years. The idea is that if the US makes an implicit guarantee to intervene to impoverished nations stuck in conflict traps, it will change the calculus of would-be coup-plotters and election-stealers. Those things look a lot less attractive if there is a credible threat of being forcibly removed from power by the US military.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    Iran wanted to elect a new prez a new government in fact; were you as gung-ho to invade Iran?
    No, but Iran is a much bigger country with a well-established (if now illegitimate) clerical government that has spent the last 30 years preparing for war with the United States. Cote D'Ivoire has a puny military and an unstable regime. Gbagbo's administration would probably flee Abidjan at the first sight of a US soldier.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    I'm talking about the people that Ivornonians that will go nuts, if this new guy goes rogue.
    There's no reason to think that they would hold the United States responsible. They like the US far more than they like their own leaders, and we would just be helping to pave the way for whom they already elected on their own. And even if they did hold the US responsible, oh well. If intervention improved the economic development of Cote D'Ivoire (and hopefully all of Western Africa) then that would be an acceptable price to pay. West Africa (less Liberia and Sierra Leone) is, in my opinion, poised for an economic boom if it can escape its poverty trap. Ghana has already done it. Nigeria is getting there. Cote D'Ivoire lags behind its peers, and some nudging from the US in the right direction can do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    If they're not forced to impose order with three rounds per man, or no ammo at all. Or, rules of engagement that prevent our troops from actually engaging the enemy. Not to mention, a CIC that isn't afraid of a little collateral damage for the safety of the soldiers. All things considered, I think we're **** outta luck on all three accounts.
    You sound gung-ho for a war, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sending in a thousand or so soldiers prepared to fire if necessary, arresting Gbagbo and his top henchmen (if they haven't already left Abidjan), turning the keys over to Outtara, and leaving after 6-8 weeks at most.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst
    Don't forget, the reason Somalia turned out so bad, is because Clinton refused to allow armor support to take part in the mission, for fear of too much collateral damage.
    No, the reasons the campaign in Somalia turned out so bad was because 1) it was in Somalia, 2) our troops had no clear mission, and 3) there was no legitimate government with whom the US military could work. Furthermore, intervening in Somalia didn't really accomplish anything from a nation-building standpoint. It's not like we were protecting democracy (there wasn't any), encouraging economic development (there wasn't any), or even strengthening American interests (there weren't any at the time). We were just trying to deliver some food from the UN.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #27
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I guess that means that you're all about deploying troops to Israel, to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah?
    We already do provide a lot of support to Israel. But no, I don't support sending American troops into places where they are unlikely to be successful in their campaign, are likely to be bogged down in a prolonged conflict, have no air of legitimacy or support from the public, and would create a mess out of a delicate regional situation. I can think of many reasons not to intervene in Gaza or Lebanon, but few not to intervene in Cote D'Ivoire.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #28
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Khandahar, this is a time when I have to disagree with you. Foreign intervention in Africa has a history of failure, I do not encourage it,
    The British intervention in Sierra Leone was a huge success, and should be a model for how military intervention can be used. Generally when humanitarian interventions have failed, it's because the peacekeepers were unwilling to fight and/or because there was no clear mission.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman
    we have to help ourselves, or we'll never get out of this crap.
    Cote D'Ivoire, like many impoverished nations, is stuck in a conflict trap. It is not able to help itself until it can break free from that trap, and it could be poor for decades without some assistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman
    The issue we should be discussing is, should the Western African Union Forces go into Ivory Coast?
    No. Doing so would threaten neighboring countries with spillover from the conflict. It's better if the US (or the Brits or any other rich country that's willing to establish order) did it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman
    American intervention is a pipe dream at the very least they may provide money but nothing more.
    Why? We've intervened in Haiti. We've intervened in Kosovo. We've intervened in Timor-Leste. What makes it so unfathomable that we could use our military for humanitarian reasons?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-29-10 at 02:32 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #29
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm interested in foreign policy and international development, not petty partisanship.
    I bet you didn't say that when we invaded Iraq.

    Yeah, ten years ago. If this new guy tries to become a dictator in ten years, we can intervene again in ten years. The idea is that if the US makes an implicit guarantee to intervene to impoverished nations stuck in conflict traps, it will change the calculus of would-be coup-plotters and election-stealers. Those things look a lot less attractive if there is a credible threat of being forcibly removed from power by the US military.
    Like I said, without rooting out the goof-balls and a years long occupation, it's a waste of time. I'm opposed to going into a country, losing men in a firefight, just to go back and do it all over again.



    No, but Iran is a much bigger country with a well-established (if now illegitimate) clerical government that has spent the last 30 years preparing for war with the United States. Cote D'Ivoire has a puny military and an unstable regime.
    Preparing for war with the U.S.? The Iranian army couldn't even defeat the Iraqi Army.


    Gbagbo's administration would probably flee Abidjan at the first sight of a US soldier.
    Never underestimate your enemy.



    There's no reason to think that they would hold the United States responsible. They like the US far more than they like their own leaders, and we would just be helping to pave the way for whom they already elected on their own. And even if they did hold the US responsible, oh well. If intervention improved the economic development of Cote D'Ivoire (and hopefully all of Western Africa) then that would be an acceptable price to pay. West Africa (less Liberia and Sierra Leone) is, in my opinion, poised for an economic boom if it can escape its poverty trap. Ghana has already done it. Nigeria is getting there. Cote D'Ivoire lags behind its peers, and some nudging from the US in the right direction can do it.
    yeah...right.



    You sound gung-ho for a war, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sending in a thousand or so soldiers prepared to fire if necessary, arresting Gbagbo and his top henchmen (if they haven't already left Abidjan), turning the keys over to Outtara, and leaving after 6-8 weeks at most.
    A thousand? Sending just a thousand troops--basically a battalion--is asking for trouble. The smart play would be to send a division, to overwhelm any resistance that might exist and don't tie their hands behind their backs with stupid ROE's.



    No, the reasons the campaign in Somalia turned out so bad was because 1) it was in Somalia
    That's different from anywhere else in Africa, how?


    2) our troops had no clear mission
    the mission was very clear: to root out and destroy the militias.



    3) there was no legitimate government with whom the US military could work.
    Perfect reason not to be there.


    Furthermore, intervening in Somalia didn't really accomplish anything from a nation-building standpoint. It's not like we were protecting democracy (there wasn't any), encouraging economic development (there wasn't any), or even strengthening American interests (there weren't any at the time). We were just trying to deliver some food from the UN.
    Another perfect reason not to be there.

    The #1 reason not to be there, however, was because we didn't have a CIC that was willing to destroy the aggressors. I'm talking about Bush as much as I am Clinton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #30
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: rmed and ready for Ivorian intervention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We already do provide a lot of support to Israel. But no, I don't support sending American troops into places where they are unlikely to be successful in their campaign
    We couldn't kick hezbollah's ass?


    are likely to be bogged down in a prolonged conflict, have no air of legitimacy or support from the public, and would create a mess out of a delicate regional situation. I can think of many reasons not to intervene in Gaza or Lebanon, but few not to intervene in Cote D'Ivoire.
    The only reason we would get bogged down in a prolonged conflict, is if we saddled our troops with overly restrictive ROE's. It's the reason we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The Infantry's mission is to,

    The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack.
    and if that's not what you're going to let them do, then there's no point in going.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •